Bill Pits Environmentalists, Farmers Against Developers in Water Dispute

Greg Lucas, Sacramento Bureau Chief

Published 4:00 am, Wednesday, January 12, 2000

2000-01-12 04:00:00 PDT Sacramento -- A odd political alliance of farmers and environmentalists squares off today against builders and cities in the latest round of a nearly decadelong fight to block new housing developments that don't have a sufficient water supply.

The battle began in 1991 when East Bay Municipal Utilities District refused to provide water to developers of the 11,000-home Dougherty Valley project near San Ramon.

But the fight has since taken on statewide importance as California grapples with the prospect of accommodating some 3.6 million new residents over the next five years.

"As more people move here, we have to be more responsible in our use of resources. And water has been one of those things we've said we're not going to worry about because it's always there," said Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica. "I don't think that's responsible."

Kuehl is the author of a bill that requires cities and counties to show that once a new housing tract is built there will still be enough water available -- even in drought years -- to meet all agricultural, residential and business needs.

Each year since 1991, on bill after bill, EBMUD and its farmer and environmentalist allies have been defeated by a politically powerful coalition of builders, realtors, cities, counties and the California Chamber of Commerce.

Environmentalists like the idea of making housing projects contingent on water availability because it could slow development.

Farmers back the measure because they don't want to lose their share of California's water to urban and suburban users.

EBMUD fears overextending itself by having to provide more and more water to new developments.

"You have to make sure you can meet the needs of your existing customers before you take on additional ones," said Randy Kanouse, EBMUD's lobbyist. "One-third of the water we sell is to businesses. They have expectations that they'll get all the water they need."

But builders, realtors and Shappell Industries -- one of the developers of Dougherty Valley -- say the solution to California's water needs is more dams and reservoirs, not added restrictions on development.

"What public policy interest does this serve? Safeguards already exist at the local level," Coyle said "A home doesn't get built unless there is an adequate supply of water."

Cities also oppose the bill because they say they already consider water supply in making development decisions.

Two East Bay Democrats -- Assemblymembers Tom Torlakson of Antioch and Ellen Corbett of San Leandro -- are pivotal to the bill's fate.

Last year, Torlakson wanted to gut a similar bill so both sides could work out their differences.

In 1993, when Torlakson was a Contra Costa County supervisor, the county approved the Dougherty Valley development that rankled EBMUD.

In 1994, the board voted to oppose a bill like the one Kuehl is carrying this year.

"Tom is still deliberating, although he's acutely concerned about the issue," said Robert Oakes, a Torlakson spokesman.

Corbett said she is inclined to support it. "It makes sense to determine if water is available when making decisions on land use," she said. EBMUD's problems with Dougherty Valley were resolved in 1998 when Shappell and another developer, Windemere Ranch Partners, paid $18 million to Zone 7, the Tri-Valley's water district to provide the project's water.